Rodriguez v. Northern Auto Auction, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Northern Auto Auction, Inc.

35 Misc. 2d 395, 225 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3965

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 Misc. 2d 395 (Rodriguez v. Northern Auto Auction, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodriguez v. Northern Auto Auction, Inc., 35 Misc. 2d 395, 225 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although plaintiff was entitled to disaffirm the purchase of the automobile on the ground of infancy, defendant should have an opportunity to recoup any loss sustained from deterioration of the automobile while in plaintiff’s possession. (Scalone v. Talley Motors, 3 A D 2d 674; Rice v. Butler, 160 N. Y. 578.)

It is noted, however, that the foregoing cause of action is inconsistent with the remaining claim for damages for fraud in the inducement of the contract. Both theories may not be asserted simultaneously, and, by the instant motion, plaintiff must be deemed to have elected to proceed on the infancy theory. (See Brown v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 278 N. Y. 317, 324; 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, Election of Remedies, § 14, p. 42.) While section 112-e of the Civil Practice Act permits the joinder of a claim for damages sustained as a result of fraud in the inducement of a contract with a claim for rescission or based upon rescission, it is inapplicable in a situation involving disaffirmance based upon infancy.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and order granting partial summary judgment modified by deleting the amount awarded to plaintiff and providing for an assessment of damages and entry of judgment thereon, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to either party on this appeal.

Concur — Hart, Benjamin and Hargett, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Although plaintiff was entitled to disaffirm the purchase of the automobile on the ground of infancy, defendant should have an opportunity to recoup any loss sustained from deterioration of the automobile while in plaintiff’s possession. (Scalone v. Talley Motors, 3 A D 2d 674; Rice v. Butler, 160 N. Y. 578.)

It is noted, however, that the foregoing cause of action is inconsistent with the remaining claim for damages for fraud in the inducement of the contract. Both theories may not be asserted simultaneously, and, by the instant motion, plaintiff must be deemed to have elected to proceed on the infancy theory. (See Brown v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 278 N. Y. 317, 324; 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, Election of Remedies, § 14, p. 42.) While section 112-e of the Civil Practice Act permits the joinder of a claim for damages sustained as a result of fraud in the inducement of a contract with a claim for rescission or based upon rescission, it is inapplicable in a situation involving disaffirmance based upon infancy.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and order granting partial summary judgment modified by deleting the amount awarded to plaintiff and providing for an assessment of damages and entry of judgment thereon, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to either party on this appeal.

Concur — Hart, Benjamin and Hargett, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 2d 395, 225 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-northern-auto-auction-inc-nyappterm-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack